9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received by the appellant for providing the services was based upon cost plus markup and is nowhere connected with the main supply of goods. In other words, the main supply may or may not happen and thus, cannot be directly correlated with the service provided by the appellant. Thus, the appellant is not acting as a bridge between the overseas group entities and supplies made to their customers in India and accordingly, it cannot be said that the appellant has provided intermediary service and should be governed under the provisions of Rule 9 of the rules. The services were in fact used for business purpose and not for the personal use or for providing welfare measures to the employees. Thus, there is nexus between the input services an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities for promotion of products and solicitation of orders for them from prospective customers located in India. The appellant in terms of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 had considered their services as export of service and accordingly, claimed refund of accumulated cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18.6.2012. The original authority had rejected the refund application on the ground that the services provided by the appellant are not to be considered as export of service inasmuch as the services were executed in India and since, the appellant was the intermediary, the place of provision of service should be considered as provided in India. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant submitted that the appellant should not be considered as an intermediary between the transactions effected by the overseas entities and the purchaser of goods inasmuch as the consideration for the appellant s services is based upon cost plus mark up and is delinked with the value of the main supply. Thus, he submitted that the embargo created in the Provision of Service Rules, 2012 should not be applicable and the appellant should be eligible for the benefit of refund as provided under notification dated 18.6.2012. Further, he has also relied on the Circular dated 20.6.2012 to state that in absence of any involvement of the appellant as an intermediary between the overseas supplier and the recipient of goods, the case of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts, I find that the service fee charged by the appellant to its overseas group entities for provision of service has no direct nexus with the supply of goods by the overseas group entities to its customers in India. Further, the appellant had provided the service to the overseas entities on principal to principal basis. Thus, the appellant cannot be termed as an intermediary between the overseas entity and the Indian customers. It is an admitted fact on record that the consideration received by the appellant for providing the services was based upon cost plus markup and is nowhere connected with the main supply of goods. In other words, the main supply may or may not happen and thus, cannot be directly correlated with the service provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
